Fuller v. Urstadt

• Decision Date: 15 January 1970
• Citation: 61 Misc.2d 988,307 N.Y.S.2d 91
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Melvin FULLER and Barbara Fuller for a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice. Law and Rules, Petitioners, v. Charles J. URSTADT, Commissioner, New York State Division of Housing andCommunity Renewal and Commissioner, New York State Housing Finance Agency, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 91

307 N.Y.S.2d 91

61 Misc.2d 988

In the Matter of the Application of Melvin FULLER and

Barbara Fuller for a Judgment under Article 78 of

the Civil Practice.

Law and Rules, Petitioners, v. Charles J. URSTADT, Commissioner, New York State Division of

Housing andCommunity Renewal and Commissioner, New

York State Housing Finance Agency, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County, Part I.

Jan. 15, 1970.

Mary B. Tarcher, New York City, for petitioners; Stanley J. Sinowitz, Edward Q. Carr, Jr., Attorney-in-Chief, The Legal Aid Society, New York City, of counsel.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, by Philip Weinberg and Burton Sadowsky, New York City, for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, respondent.

MEMORANDUM

MURRAY T. FEIDEN, Justice.

Petitioners in this Article 78 proceeding, husband and wife, are tenants in a multiple dwelling located at 1700 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, known as Ebbets Field Apartments, owned by the Field Housing Co., Inc., a limited profit housing company organized and existing under the Private Housing Finance Law of the State of New York, herein referred to as the owner.

Petitioners, by this Article 78 proceeding, seek to annul the determination of the respondents (The Commissioner of New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal and Commissioner of New York State Housing Finance Agency) that they are ineligible for continued occupancy of their apartment and ask that the matter be remitted for a further determination as to their eligibility. Petitioners assert that they have been denied 'due process' claiming that they have a right to a hearing to ascertain the reasons for their ineligibility and to have an opportunity to appeal any adverse determination.

The petitioners derived their occupancy under a rental agreement made with the New York State Housing Finance Agency whose power and authority will be hereinafter discussed.

The sole issue herein is whether the respondents are required to afford petitioners a hearing before serving them with a written notice to vacate their apartment. Petitioners rely on the cases of Housing Authority of the City of Durham v. Thorpe, 267 N.C. 431, 148 S.E.2d 290, vacated and remanded 386 U.S. 670, 87 S.Ct. 1244, 18 L.Ed.2d 394, on remand, 271 N.C. 468, 157 S.E.2d 147, revd. and remanded, 393 U.S. 268, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474, and Vinson v. Greenburgh Housing Authority, 29 A.D.2d 338, 288 N.Y.S.2d 159. An examination of these cases and the other authorities cited by petitioners discloses that they all refer to 'public housing' which was erected with public funds. The respondents claim that these authorities are inapposite since the property in question is not public housing and was not built with public funds but was conceived, organized and is existing under the provisions of the New York State Private Housing Finance Law.

This of necessity leads us to an examination of the purposes and intent of the law for a determination as to whether the theory expressed in Housing Authority of the City of Durham v. Thorpe, Supra, and Vinson v. Greenburgh Housing Authority, Supra, is applicable here.

The legislature in enacting the Private Housing Finance Law stated (Sec. 41):

'* * * In order to encourage the investment of Private capital and provide such dwelling accommodations, provision should be made for mortgage loans, at low interest rates, to housing companies which, subject to state regulations as to rents, profits, dividends and disposition of their property, supply multiple dwelling accommodations, * * * and other facilities incidental or appurtenant thereto to such families and persons. For that purpose there should be created a corporate governmental agency of the state to be known as 'New York state housing finance agency', which, through the issuance of Its bonds, notes and other obligations to the private investing public, may attract a broad base of investment by the greatest number of the general public and obtain the funds necessary to make such mortgage loans. Thus, Private capital will be encouraged to enter this field of investment and will help meet the housing needs of families and persons of low income. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)

The New York State Housing Finance Agency herein referred to as the Agency, was thus created (Sec. 43) to borrow money and issue its negotiable notes, bonds and other obligations and to provide for the rights of the holders thereof (Sec. 47, subd. 7). Section 46, subd. 8, provides that 'the state shall not be liable on notes and bonds of the agency and such notes and bonds shall not be a debt of the state, and such notes and bonds shall contain on the face thereof a statement to such effect.'

Section 44--a provides that the Agency, subject to the approval of the Commissioner and to the provision of any contract with note...